Reality is Reduced to Axioms

This is yet another claim you haven't supported.

It's a circular argument.
Predicated on an unsupported assumption.

Not shown to be the case so far.

Still an unsupported claim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe it has become self-evident which one of us has trouble thinking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would most likely be the one that can't provide any support.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is really, really simple. If perceptions were truly separate from reality then a photon could not travel towards one's eye enabling one to see.

 

Ah, so, according to you, perception is nothing more than sight?
And that still doesn't necessarily mean that what we see is reality.
(Plus, of course, your - very simplistic - argument excludes all sub-atomic particles, forces, thoughts, air, etc).

 

Simplistic or not it is correct. You are free to believe what you like.

 

And you're back to unsupported claims again.
(Well, when I say you're back" what I mean is "'you're still doing nothing but").

 

I disagree. I feel that I've argued my stance to the best of my ability throughout this thread. So there is nothing further for us to discuss.

 

Oh I agree.
You've argued to the best of your ability.
Unfortunately that "ability" is sadly deficient when it comes to logic, rationality and supporting your point (with anything other than repetition and yet more empty claims).

 

Axioms evolve

we see reality

the depth of reality , is based on the micro scale and the macro scale

 

Hi river,

Can you explain what you mean when you say "axioms evolve"? Because I've always interpreted axioms to be self-evident and therefore consistent. It is impossible to derive a contradiction from the axiom.

 

What I find sad is your need to appeal to authority on an anonymous internet board.

 

Yet you don't find it sad that you have to invent this "appeal to authority"?
You are the one that persistently quotes other people's work with zero discussion.

 

One perceives what we call reality, through the filters of their own mind. The expert in any field of study will see reality in that speciality area with more clarity than the layman. They are not seeing the same piece of reality due to different quality of filters with the filter of the expert containing a more polished lens.

In the world of specialization, each expert may see a piece of reality with high clarity but for the rest of the pieces that may only have cheap sun glasses when looking at things out of their field. The biologists may not see the world of physics as clearly as the physicists and vice versa. Reality is not just one speciality piece of the pie, but the entire shooting match, with nobody having the clarity to see all of reality due to specialization.

 

Wellwisher,

Reality is a specialty itself. It has a definition and so once that specialty is defined one will have gained the big picture.

 

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/06/226-christopher-m-langan.html

 

We have two sides of the brain with each side processing data differently. Specialization uses the left side of the brain which is more differential in terms of how it sees reality. But we also have the right side of the brain which is more integral. Reality will require integration of all the facts and not differentiation into a few highly researched facts.

Picture a large photograph of a forest. Speciality will zoom in to a particular place on the photo and define all the tiniest of details in the area of focus. It may see one tree and define that as well as possible. What it might then try to do, after it differentiates the tree, is make this the central premise from which its reality expands, since this is what it knows the best, thereby being its best foundation. But in the process of being too close, it will lose track of big picture since it can't clearly see that far, due to the zoom.

For example, if you had a forest and came to a focus at a unique maple tree specimen, one might conclude this a maple tree forest. But that may not be the case, since one tree does not a forest make. One has to step back and look at all the trees (all the specialities) and take an average to know for sure what the major tree specimen is, so one can define the forest properly. This will be a right brain process where the right brain does an integration from south to north and then east to west to make sure the entire forest is being considered before defining what the forest is; what reality is.

Since the right brain does not process language in terms of words, it is not easy to present right brain findings with language. What tends to happen the explanation becomes esoteric, as a spatial concept is reduced with language into something more left brain linear, with the fogginess of the added esoteric words, trying to generate the extra z-dimension that is easier to feel than say. The left brain has better clarity for language, but it is too close to see that an integration is needed.

 

I had a very unique set of experiences, which required I had to define reality. This happened many years ago, when doing unconscious mind research on myself. What had essentially had happened, was I had a major memory organization loss, so I could no longer recite by root, any aspect of reality in a cultural way.

My consciousness had shifted from left brain; science, to right brain, where the words of language do not exist. The right brain does not process language like the left so the words were not there, only the visuals and data of reality. I had been a well trained scientist before that, and was by the book, but after the shift that connection was lost. It was interesting but unsettling.

What I did retain was my right brain creativity and ingenuity as a development engineer. I had to contrive a new reality for myself from scratch since I had lost the other one. It was hard being free floating, without the cultural mooring of science. Without these moorings even a little wind could set me floating. I had to reinvent a personal version of reality, from scratch, to moor myself.

The approach I took, was to start at the beginning of time and then evolve the universe from matter to life, until I appear in the scheme of things. From what i would invent and learn, all internally, I would make another pass and build on that. The end of one turn of this spiral, would change the beginning of the next pass, and the path of the spiral would then change the new end. I developing my hydrogen bonding model of life during this time, but it was using unknown forces. When I was finally reaching a steady state and has moored again, I decided to go back to cultural reality and relearn what I had known at one time, while maintaining my integration spiral.

I am sort of a composite of these two things; cultural left and private right. I respect the details of specialization but prefer the integration of the spiral approach.

I won't get into it, but the axioms of cultural reality are built upon cornerstone theories. Building knowledge bases is like building a large building. The footings, foundation and beams are placed, that will support all the weight above. Like with any building, if you upset one or more of these footings, especially a cornerstone, which I had done in the microcosm of my mind, the entire building will shift. This will place undue stresses. I my case, the house collapsed and I had to build again. I had the rubble to work with but no plan at first.

 

C.M. Langan: "Telesis, which can be characterized as “infocognitive potential”, is the primordial active medium from which laws and their arguments and parameters emerge by mutual refinement or telic recursion. In other words, telesis is a kind of “pre-spacetime” from which time and space, cognition and information, state-transitional syntax and state, have not yet separately emerged. Once bound in a primitive infocognitive form that drives emergence by generating “relievable stress” between its generalized spatial and temporal components - i.e., between state and state-transition syntax – telesis continues to be refined into new infocognitive configurations, i.e. new states and new arrangements of state-transition syntax, in order to relieve the stress between syntax and state through telic recursion (which it can never fully do, owing to the contingencies inevitably resulting from independent telic recursion on the parts of localized subsystems). As far as concerns the primitive telic-recursive infocognitive MU form itself, it does not “emerge” at all except intrinsically; it has no “external” existence except as one of the myriad possibilities that naturally exist in an unbounded realm of zero constraint. ... Whereas ordinary computational models are informational and syntactic in character, the protocomputational nature of SCSPL requires a generalization of information and syntax. With respect to the origin or ultimate nature of perceptual reality, explanation is a reductive/inductive process that regressively unbinds constraints in order to lay bare those of highest priority and generality. This process eventually leads to the most basic intelligible descriptor that can be formulated, beyond which lies only the unintelligible. This marks the transition from information and syntax to a convergent reductive generalization, telesis. ... Thus, languages are ultimately self-processing; they must either contain their processors in their expressions, or be expressed in terms of a more basic language fulfilling this requirement. Accordingly, the expressions of SCSPL are dynamic informational configurations of information-processors, implying that SCSPL everywhere consists of information and acceptive-transductive syntax in a state of logical intersection. Together, information and syntax comprise infocognition, self-transducing information in the form of SCSPL syntactic operators that cross-absorptively “communicate” by acquiring each other’s informational states as cognitive-syntactic content. It is to the common basis of these two components that information may be reduced in the SCSPL context. Where the term telesis denotes this common component of information and syntax, SCSPL grammar refines infocognition by binding or constraining telesis as infocognition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isotelesis

Reality is reduced to these axioms. The word "Reality" can be replaced by the word "Telesis".

 

One of those "axioms" being: given sufficient word salad there'll always be some fool who thinks it's correct.